Did the losing party over perform or under perform electorally in each election

[OSR stands with Israel]

since 1968, without taking account who the opposing candidate was , unless they were an incumbent president.



1968: Over Performed (No way Humphrey should have been that close to winning, with LBJ being that unpopular, and the amount of unrest their was in the country in 1968)

1972: Under Performed(They should have won around 100 electoral votes this year, seeing that nixon wasnt that popular , and the economy wasnt doing that well)

1976: Around the Same(with mixed conditions in the country , and the president approval being mixed this election always was going to be a close one, and the election was likely going to be won by the dems narrowly due to Ford's Pardon)

1980: Under Performed(Carter got less electoral votes then Hoover did in 1932 and while the country was in terrible shape in 1980 it was no where near as bad of a shape as it was in 1932)

1984: Around the Same(Reagan was super popular , the country was clearly in better shape then it was in 1980, the country wasnt that divided back then as now so this election was always going to result in a massive landslide for Reagan)

1988: Under Performed(After being out of office for 8 years, the party out of power should be able to get more then 112 electoral votes)

1992: Under performed(The country was not in that bad of a shape, the cold war ended under gop rule, and the economy was improving by 1992. While Bush wouldnt have won he should have won at least 210 electoral votes , instead of doing worse then McCain 2008 electorally)

1996: Over Performed( Clinton was popular, and the country was clearly in great shape , there was no reason the GOP should have won more then 140 electoral votes this year)

2000: Under Performed(With the economy being in such good shape, and there being no foreign policy crises , Democrats should have won this election)

2004: Around the Same(With the country being in mixed shape, and being very polarized due to the Iraq War in 2004 this election was always going to be close but since the GOP was in office for  one term this election was likely going to be GOP wins in a close race)

2008:Over Performed (With Bush approval in the 20s, the US being involved in an unpopular war, and the economy crashing two months before the election there was no reason the GOP should have won more then 140 electoral votes)

2012: Under Performed(With the country still being in pretty bad shape economically , this election likely should have been as close as 2000 ,  instead Obama won pretty handily )

2016: Around the Same(With the country conditions still being in mixed shape after 8 years this election was likely going to be won by the GOP and they did)

[Mr.Phips]

since 1968, without taking account who the opposing candidate was , unless they were an incumbent president.



1968: Over Performed (No way Humphrey should have been that close to winning, with LBJ being that unpopular, and the amount of unrest their was in the country in 1968)

1972: Under Performed(They should have won around 100 electoral votes this year, seeing that nixon wasnt that popular , and the economy wasnt doing that well)

1976: Around the Same(with mixed conditions in the country , and the president approval being mixed this election always was going to be a close one, and the election was likely going to be won by the dems narrowly due to Ford's Pardon)

1980: Under Performed(Carter got less electoral votes then Hoover did in 1932 and while the country was in terrible shape in 1980 it was no where near as bad of a shape as it was in 1932)

1984: Around the Same(Reagan was super popular , the country was clearly in better shape then it was in 1980, the country wasnt that divided back then as now so this election was always going to result in a massive landslide for Reagan)

1988: Under Performed(After being out of office for 8 years, the party out of power should be able to get more then 112 electoral votes)

1992: Under performed(The country was not in that bad of a shape, the cold war ended under gop rule, and the economy was improving by 1992. While Bush wouldnt have won he should have won at least 210 electoral votes , instead of doing worse then McCain 2008 electorally)

1996: Over Performed( Clinton was popular, and the country was clearly in great shape , there was no reason the GOP should have won more then 140 electoral votes this year)

2000: Under Performed(With the economy being in such good shape, and there being no foreign policy crises , Democrats should have won this election)

2004: Around the Same(With the country being in mixed shape, and being very polarized due to the Iraq War in 2004 this election was always going to be close but since the GOP was in office for  one term this election was likely going to be GOP wins in a close race)

2008:Over Performed (With Bush approval in the 20s, the US being involved in an unpopular war, and the economy crashing two months before the election there was no reason the GOP should have won more then 140 electoral votes)

2012: Under Performed(With the country still being in pretty bad shape economically , this election likely should have been as close as 2000 ,  instead Obama won pretty handily )

2016: Around the Same(With the country conditions still being in mixed shape after 8 years this election was likely going to be won by the GOP and they did)

In 1968, LBJ wasn't that unpopular (was usually in the mid 40s), and was actually leading Nixon in the polls before he dropped out. 

[SingingAnalyst]

since 1968, without taking account who the opposing candidate was , unless they were an incumbent president.



1968: Over Performed (No way Humphrey should have been that close to winning, with LBJ being that unpopular, and the amount of unrest their was in the country in 1968)

In early Sept. 1968 HHH was only at 28% in the polls; Nixon led with 43% and Wallace had 21%; there was speculation Wallace might outperform HHH in the EC. HHH surged in Sept. and Oct.
 into early November.  HHH winning TX was a bit of a surprise I think.

1972: Under Performed(They should have won around 100 electoral votes this year, seeing that nixon wasnt that popular , and the economy wasnt doing that well)

Nixon led McGovern heavily throughout the campaign; McGovern was perceived as "weak"; his dumping of Eagleton as running-mate didn't help.

1976: Around the Same(with mixed conditions in the country , and the president approval being mixed this election always was going to be a close one, and the election was likely going to be won by the dems narrowly due to Ford's Pardon)

Mirror image of 1968, with Carter up 33 points at one point, only to nearly lose the election (the final Gallup poll actually had Ford up 1).

1980: Under Performed(Carter got less electoral votes then Hoover did in 1932 and while the country was in terrible shape in 1980 it was no where near as bad of a shape as it was in 1932)

Right up to election day the election was considered too close to call. Reagan led Carter by 3 points, 47/44, in the final Gallup poll.

1984: Around the Same(Reagan was super popular , the country was clearly in better shape then it was in 1980, the country wasnt that divided back then as now so this election was always going to result in a massive landslide for Reagan)

No surprises; Reagan led big from early Sept. after Mondale had made it relatively close after the Dem convention and even led by 2 in one July poll.

1988: Under Performed(After being out of office for 8 years, the party out of power should be able to get more then 112 electoral votes)

Dukakis led Bush by 17 points in one poll taken in the spring of 1988.

1992: Under performed(The country was not in that bad of a shape, the cold war ended under gop rule, and the economy was improving by 1992. While Bush wouldnt have won he should have won at least 210 electoral votes , instead of doing worse then McCain 2008 electorally)

In early Oct., after Perot got back in, Clinton led Bush, 52/35. The final Gallup poll showed Clinton up 44/36, with 14% for Perot. Perot's actual PV% was 19%.

Bush's comment that "most of my supporters are on the back nine or at their daughters' coming-out parties" probably didn't help him.

1996: Over Performed( Clinton was popular, and the country was clearly in great shape , there was no reason the GOP should have won more then 140 electoral votes this year)

2000: Under Performed(With the economy being in such good shape, and there being no foreign policy crises , Democrats should have won this election)

2004: Around the Same(With the country being in mixed shape, and being very polarized due to the Iraq War in 2004 this election was always going to be close but since the GOP was in office for  one term this election was likely going to be GOP wins in a close race)

2008:Over Performed (With Bush approval in the 20s, the US being involved in an unpopular war, and the economy crashing two months before the election there was no reason the GOP should have won more then 140 electoral votes)

2012: Under Performed(With the country still being in pretty bad shape economically , this election likely should have been as close as 2000 ,  instead Obama won pretty handily )

2016: Around the Same(With the country conditions still being in mixed shape after 8 years this election was likely going to be won by the GOP and they did)

1996-2012 polls were spot-on. As we all know, most polls got 2016 wrong, at least in terms of the final result.

[Peanut]

In '68 the Dems overperformed, Humphrey shouldn't have made it that close, with the war and LBJ.
In '72 they underperforned but it was mainly in nominating McGovern and with Eagleton.
In '76 Carter should've won 400+ EVs.
In '88 we should've won much more, if not the election.
In '08, the GOP overperformed, Obama should have won around 400 EVs with the economy as it was.
The rest were pretty much what could be expected.

[Hydera]

In '68 the Dems overperformed, Humphrey shouldn't have made it that close, with the war and LBJ.
In '72 they underperforned but it was mainly in nominating McGovern and with Eagleton.
In '76 Carter should've won 400+ EVs.
In '88 we should've won much more, if not the election.
In '08, the GOP overperformed, Obama should have won around 400 EVs with the economy as it was.
The rest were pretty much what could be expected.

 
The GOP over performed and prevented Obama from getting 400+ EV's because their vote was pretty resilient. Losing only three million voters while had it been in the past Obama would had won 10%+ and 400+ EV's easily.

[twenty42]

In '68 the Dems overperformed, Humphrey shouldn't have made it that close, with the war and LBJ.
In '72 they underperforned but it was mainly in nominating McGovern and with Eagleton.
In '76 Carter should've won 400+ EVs.
In '88 we should've won much more, if not the election.
In '08, the GOP overperformed, Obama should have won around 400 EVs with the economy as it was.
The rest were pretty much what could be expected.

 
The GOP over performed and prevented Obama from getting 400+ EV's because their vote was pretty resilient. Losing only three million voters while had it been in the past Obama would had won 10%+ and 400+ EV's easily.

Obama was a very poor fit for TX and the Deep South compared to past Democratic nominees. This kept it from being an electoral blowout in 2008.

[Mr. Smith]

'68: Over
'72: Under
'76: Under
'80: Under
'84: About the Same
'88: Under
'92: Under
'96: Under [albeit Perot was the true over-performer here]
2000: Over
'04: Over
'08: Over
'12: Under
'16: Under

[OSR stands with Israel]

'68: Over
'72: Under
'76: Under
'80: Under
'84: About the Same
'88: Under
'92: Under
'96: Under [albeit Perot was the true over-performer here]
2000: Over
'04: Over
'08: Over
'12: Under
'16: Under

Why


With how good the shape of the country was in 2000, Democrats should have easily won that election, and in 2016 the conditions favored the Republicans.

[Hydera]

'68: Over
'72: Under
'76: Under
'80: Under
'84: About the Same
'88: Under
'92: Under
'96: Under [albeit Perot was the true over-performer here]
2000: Over
'04: Over
'08: Over
'12: Under
'16: Under

Why


With how good the shape of the country was in 2000, Democrats should have easily won that election, and in 2016 the conditions favored the Republicans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/campaign2000results/state/poll_usop-.html

Lots of things happened. The Perot voters in 1996 split 62% for Bush, 25% for Gore, 7% for Nader, 2% for Buchanan. Most of the reasons is a combination of Religious views because Bush was evangelical, a lot of the 1988 HW Bush/Perot/Perot voters being conservative and finally went back home to the GOP, tax cuts, Perot endorsing Bush, Lewinsky scandal).  

Gore getting 7% of the Dole vote but Bush getting 13% of the Clinton vote due to Lewinsky and the restart of the rural-urban divide on social issues especially with the Lewinsky scandal offending a lot of Christians who voted for Clinton twice.  Most of Gore's dole voters who switched were particularly from the 'burbs who liked how the economy was doing and might as had been uneasy about Bush's evangelicalism.

And Finally mass voter registration of Evangelicals in 2000 that continued into 2004. Due to Bush being an evangelical.

[dw93]

1968: Over performed. With the war, riots, and the Democratic convention that year, Nixon should've done much better than he did, with or without Wallace and even with a decent economy.

1972: Under performed, but only due to McGovern. If someone like HHH, Muskie, or even Jackson been nominated, Nixon still would've won decisively, but it wouldn't have been the blow out that it was. The Democratic party was still in shambles overall, Nixon did go to China, and while he did unnecessarily escalate the war, he did decrease the number of troops there, and while the economy was worse than it was in 1968, it still wasn't bad enough for Nixon to lose on that alone.

1976: Over performed. Ford had the pardon, a strong primary challenge from Reagan, and a weak recovery from the 73-75 recession. With all of this, Ford should've lost in a landslide, it was only because Carter made so many novice mistakes in the general election campaign and Ford being personally like able that the Republicans even had a chance in the first place. It says a lot about Carter (who, his Presidency aside, I like and respect) that it came so close in the first place.

1980: Slightly Under performed, but only because of Anderson. Had he not run, Carter would've done a little bit better than he did. Regardless, Reagan was gonna win well over 300 Electoral Votes.

1984: Slightly Under performed. Unemployment was still well north of 7% in 1984 and Mondale could've and should've used this to his advantage. Had he done that, kept his mouth shut about taxes, and picked someone with less baggage than Ferraro to be his running mate, Mondale would've done better. Reagan still wins a landslide regardless (and I say this as someone who his, overall, no fan of Reagan).

1988: Greatly Under performed. 1988 should've been a close election that could've gone either way than the Republican landslide that it was. Reagan's second term was rocked by Iran Contra (which was worse than anything Bill did with Monica) and there does tend to be at least some fatigue after 8 years of one party in the White House. If the Democrats nominated a stronger candidate or Dukakis didn't make SOO many mistakes, Bush would've really been given a run for his money.

1992: Slightly Under Performed, but IMHO, in the end Bush was still doomed to defeat. Bush's foreign policy accomplishments alone should've made it a closer race, but because of the early 90s recession (The recovery was underway in 92 but not noticeable until Clinton got in) and Bush's response to it, as well as Bush not having much of anything to offer for a Second Term, Atwater's death in 1991, and Perot and Buchanan (who hurt Bush more than Perot IMHO) muddying the waters, Bush was still going to lose. Subtract Montana, Colorado, Nevada, and Georgia from Clinton and give them to Bush, that's probably what the 92 election would've looked like if Bush hadn't under performed.

1996-2004: Your descriptions of those are pretty spot on.

2008: Was about right IMHO. Obama's lack of experience was an issue. I think had he been more experienced, or the Dems nominated a more experienced candidate, or Romney or Huckabee gotten the Republican nomination, it would've been a landslide win for the Dems.

2012: Pretty spot on, and I as an Obama voter thought it was gonna be a close election up to election day for the very reasons you stated. With that said, I still think Obama was going to win in the end. I think Obama won, at least in part, because the Country wasn't ready to put another Republican in just 4 years after the disaster that was the Bush/Cheney Administration.

2016: About right. As a Sanders/Clinton voter, I do think The fundamentals did slightly favor the GOP. It was just that they had a bad field of candidates (of the main ones, Kasich aside).

[Joe McCarthy Was Right]

since 1968, without taking account who the opposing candidate was , unless they were an incumbent president.



1968: Over Performed (No way Humphrey should have been that close to winning, with LBJ being that unpopular, and the amount of unrest their was in the country in 1968)

In early Sept. 1968 HHH was only at 28% in the polls; Nixon led with 43% and Wallace had 21%; there was speculation Wallace might outperform HHH in the EC. HHH surged in Sept. and Oct.
 into early November.  HHH winning TX was a bit of a surprise I think.

1972: Under Performed(They should have won around 100 electoral votes this year, seeing that nixon wasnt that popular , and the economy wasnt doing that well)

Nixon led McGovern heavily throughout the campaign; McGovern was perceived as "weak"; his dumping of Eagleton as running-mate didn't help.

1976: Around the Same(with mixed conditions in the country , and the president approval being mixed this election always was going to be a close one, and the election was likely going to be won by the dems narrowly due to Ford's Pardon)

Mirror image of 1968, with Carter up 33 points at one point, only to nearly lose the election (the final Gallup poll actually had Ford up 1).

1980: Under Performed(Carter got less electoral votes then Hoover did in 1932 and while the country was in terrible shape in 1980 it was no where near as bad of a shape as it was in 1932)

Right up to election day the election was considered too close to call. Reagan led Carter by 3 points, 47/44, in the final Gallup poll.

1984: Around the Same(Reagan was super popular , the country was clearly in better shape then it was in 1980, the country wasnt that divided back then as now so this election was always going to result in a massive landslide for Reagan)

No surprises; Reagan led big from early Sept. after Mondale had made it relatively close after the Dem convention and even led by 2 in one July poll.

1988: Under Performed(After being out of office for 8 years, the party out of power should be able to get more then 112 electoral votes)

Dukakis led Bush by 17 points in one poll taken in the spring of 1988.

1992: Under performed(The country was not in that bad of a shape, the cold war ended under gop rule, and the economy was improving by 1992. While Bush wouldnt have won he should have won at least 210 electoral votes , instead of doing worse then McCain 2008 electorally)

In early Oct., after Perot got back in, Clinton led Bush, 52/35. The final Gallup poll showed Clinton up 44/36, with 14% for Perot. Perot's actual PV% was 19%.

Bush's comment that "most of my supporters are on the back nine or at their daughters' coming-out parties" probably didn't help him.

1996: Over Performed( Clinton was popular, and the country was clearly in great shape , there was no reason the GOP should have won more then 140 electoral votes this year)

2000: Under Performed(With the economy being in such good shape, and there being no foreign policy crises , Democrats should have won this election)

2004: Around the Same(With the country being in mixed shape, and being very polarized due to the Iraq War in 2004 this election was always going to be close but since the GOP was in office for  one term this election was likely going to be GOP wins in a close race)

2008:Over Performed (With Bush approval in the 20s, the US being involved in an unpopular war, and the economy crashing two months before the election there was no reason the GOP should have won more then 140 electoral votes)

2012: Under Performed(With the country still being in pretty bad shape economically , this election likely should have been as close as 2000 ,  instead Obama won pretty handily )

2016: Around the Same(With the country conditions still being in mixed shape after 8 years this election was likely going to be won by the GOP and they did)

1996-2012 polls were spot-on. As we all know, most polls got 2016 wrong, at least in terms of the final result.

The polls in 2000 weren't accurate either. The RCP average was Bush +3.2. The state polls got the winner correctly in most states, but underestimated margins in states Gore won.